In general, I support the no-censorship policy or, at least, admire the courage GTO and rachmeil showed in pursuing it, but I think that, due to recent abuse, it may have to be curtailed. No one wants partisan censorship of the sort NYCFan conducted while a mod, but the threads and posts full of racial slurs and misogyny really do no one any benefit whatsoever. They're annoying and disgusting. Virtually all of us are at risk of outing (if not already outed) and it doesn't do us good to be associated with the cesspool that this board is seen to be, increasingly, in the common or public view. While a well-reasoned post critical of (or supporting) affirmative action allows for discussion and should not be censored, racial slurs just anger and annoy the sensible posters here. Really, they make all of us look bad. Racism is one of the most repugnant traits of human societies, and I'm disgusted every time I have to see it.

"Free speech" does not entail the right to say anything one wants anonymously and without accountability. In fact, one of the reasons free speech laws exist is to encourage (or at least allow) people to express controversial ideas in the open, with the author's identity in clear view, rather than furtively and without accountability, as they would have to do in a repressive environment. The First Amendment, of course, says nothing about private censorship. In the light of recent events, if GTO and rachmeil decide it to be in their best interests to delete spam, racism, misogyny, and defamation of other people, I'll support them on this, so long as they create a reasonable moderation structure and select good individuals (e.g. NOT sugary or NYCFan) to police it.

Of course, censorship becomes dangerous when it is used by partisans for their own purposes. An example of this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia which, while reliable and valuable on objective matters (e.g. mathematics, science) is rather terrible on subjective matters, due to the heavy-handed, partisan, and often embarrassing behavior of the thousand or so individuals designated as "sysops". Wikipedia, while a very successful encyclopedia, has failed disastrously as a community due to unintended, but predictable, consequences of the sysop/administrator selection process. (In short, promotion to admin status is based predominantly on one's edit count, which favors heavily the obsessive and underemployed rather than those who would make the best decisions with the authority. This is not limited to Wikipedia, but a problem of most internet forums.) In order to avoid this danger, GTO and rachmeil would need to make very careful decisions in selecting moderators. NYCFan, Joe Caltech, and sugarywitch were all terrible choices for many reasons-- partisan, flamewars, out-of-touch, bad posters, et cetera. By selecting them, GTO forfeit the board's trust, leading to the "moderator controversy" which emerged, in my mind, more due to the poor selection of individuals than the proposed change in structure. GTO and rachmeil will have to make exceptionally good choices in selecting moderators if they wish to regain the lost trust. On the other hand, I think MindTheGap76 and chancemeeting are very good posters, and perhaps they can do a lot of good for the board.

On pauliewalnuts, I generally prefer not to speak about him beyond this post. To some degree, I "befriended" him over AIM, and I think he had the potential to offer a lot of good to the board. When this association formed, I was not aware of his rather execrable misdeeds, such as the Cravath3L incident and the SullCrom outing. I was, of course, aware of the T14 girls contest, which I took at face-value to be a boorish but harmless satire of law school social life. At the time, I did not know about the damage this contest did (or appears to have done) to others' social and professional lives.

I have given him my confidence not to reveal certain "outable" information or to "turn against" him, and while I condemn many of his actions, I intend to keep my word. I wish neither to attack nor to support him. I think it is in his best interest, and in ours, for him to leave the board forever. I will never out him, and I don't support it being done to him, but if he continues to behave in the way he has, his exposure is imminent. That's the nature of attention-seeking behavior in public view; you can only stay hidden for so long.

I also find Pauliewalnuts's crusade against ReputationDefender to be a bit bizarre and unjustified. I question his motives in attacking this particular company. There have been many technology companies that have overestimated their capabilities within emerging markets and made impossible or impractical claims-- RD may or may not be one of them; really, I don't know-- and I don't see why this one deserves more scrutiny and punishment than the others. If RD turns out to be ineffective at meeting its clients' needs, it will fail, and viewing its claims skeptically, I don't find this unlikely, but there's no reason to punish it just for existing. I wish to make no commentary on the speculation that RD "sacrificed" its clients, mainly because I'm ignorant of most of the details.

On Wash Post: We don't really know why the Yale Law student was denied these jobs. She had four callbacks, and it's plausible that any number between 0 and 4 of those firms denied her due to the behavior of XO's miscreants. In fact, the opacity of the hiring processes across the country is a major problem, and one not limited to the "Google issue". The fact that people usually never know why they are denied educational or job opportunities has some very negative consequences for job-seekers, for the anti-discrimination cause, and for society as a whole. It allows companies to hide from public view ineffectiveness, injustice, and criminality-- socioeconomic (aka "soft factor"/nonacademic) admissions at elite colleges, racial discrimination, and hiring decisions made based on unreliable or useless Internet information.

In my opinion, neither Google nor XO are at fault. Rather, responsibility lies with two more culpable parties. The first is the set of cowardly posters who use anonymity to abuse other people. The second comprises the employers (who likewise abuse the opacity of hiring processes) who allow unreliable Internet information to factor in their hiring decisions. Unfortunately, the only recourse against the first party would be to disable or revert the policy of anonymity, which would have a chilling effect on discussion. Likewise, we really have no recourse against the douchebag employers that use Google against job applicants and that, by doing so, destroy the Internet in the process. If XO really is having as much of a damaging effect on peoples' lives as the Wash Post claims, we really ought to revisit the no-moderation concept.

I am, admittely, at times one of the board's best (worst?) trolls/flamers. While I may not continue trolling any more, let me express the sentiment that artful and effective trolling is supposed to be harmless. A troll like Patrick E. S. Vine, my "minus fucking eight" thread, or Media Kid doesn't harm anyone. The best schticks on this thread-- 174, dungeonmasTTTer-- are essentially harmless. The worst and most problematic trolls are those who, lacking skill and subtlety, can only "breach" by being outright mean and offensive. Subtlety and harmlessness are traits of effective trolling, which is a form of humor. By contrast, a troll who attempts to incite others by posting racist comments or threatening violence against women is unimaginative-- any teenager could do that-- and a drain on the board. Likewise, a troll who attempts to draw attention to himself by ruining others' lives is a detriment to the board, as well as to society, and should be banned, in my opinion, without question. In any case, such actions are incongruent with the spirit of trolling. The essence of a good troll is to get other people offended out of proportion, and lead them to make fools of themselves. Then, a person who is legitimately offensive (rather than ironic) or does odious things to other people is NOT an effective troll, because people react due to being legitimately offended.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731820)

NYCFan was a mod for quite some time and abused his privs. Sugarywitch and I haven't had many words, but she's clearly a bad choice due to the history of cattiness.

For the record, I'd also consider myself a bad choice for modship, not because I'd abuse the privs, but because I'm a troll and flame warrior and it'd be bad faith to the board.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731864)

:)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731842)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=592218&mc=68&forum_id=2

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=592676&mc=61&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731919)

You prove that you don't need racism or other vile shit to entertain the board, as your schticks are far more intelligent and well made.

Keep standing up for what's right, god knows there are so few left on this board with any convictions whatsover.

I'll be alongside you in our fight to make xoxo a better place!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731927)

and you're not funny with that stupid line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7731936)

Hi, Pensive!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7733587)

P.S. pensiv =/= pauliewalnuts. I have pretty conclusive evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7733522)

you obviously never read the CB threads with joe caltech and useatoothbrush where he went apeshit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7733620)

Joe Caltech: I probably overreacted, but his tone was extremely smug and I'm pretty intolerant of that trait. I can handle simple arrogance, but smug fuckers just ignite a sort of visceral anger.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7733824)

2. the consequences of not having any content or viewpoint discriminatory mods sucks, admittedly. i don't like the yls 1L stuff, and i don't like this board's reputation as a cesspool. HOWEVER it's better than the alternative, which is protracted debates and arbitrary exercises of power over questions of what should be censored. is arguing against race-based affirmative action over the line? what about claiming in all seriousness that intelligence is genetic, or that black people naturally have less of it? what if those assertions are offered in good faith to resolve empirical puzzles? how do we decide what is good faith? these are legitimate topics of conversation that some people will nevertheless find very offensive. i agree that we shouldn't drag some poor undeserving 1L's name into the fray, but what about the ND student arrested for drunk driving? the UVA girl who stripped to her underwear and jumped in the hudson? the summer associate who makes an ass of himself in a slightly subtler way? gossip and discussion are part of the bread and butter of this site. any line we draw to protect the YLS 1L is going to be somewhat arbitrary and unpredictable and will inevitably burden the rest of the (legitimate) gossiping. hands-off is the only sustainable and consistent policy.

3. it's pretty clear to me that pensive = pauliewalnuts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=592859&forum_id=2#7733795)